Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> writes: > Dear Måns Rullgård, > > In message <yw1x8uxc28y9....@unicorn.mansr.com> you wrote: >> >> >> Something like this should be equivalent. That said, it looks >> >> suspiciously like it's meant to simply do a division and round up. If >> >> that is the case, +225 should be +249. It probably makes no difference >> >> for the values actually encountered. >> > >> > Umm... this is the part which I do not understand. >> > >> > The original code adds 90%; you add 90%, too. However, to round up, >> > one usually adds only 50% ? >> >> Adding 50% would round to nearest. For integer division to round up, >> you must add one less than the divisor. > > Agreed. But do we want to round up? The original code used +90%, > which is something else, too...
That rounds fractions >= 0.1 up while < 0.1 is rounded down. It's an unusual thing to do, which is why I suspect it's not quite correct in the first place. >> > Where are these 90% coming from? Are they in any way meaningful, or >> > even critical? >> >> My guess is that it was someone's approximation of 249 / 250. I don't >> know the hardware, so it's conceivable that it really should be this >> way, although it seems unlikely. > > Are you able to test such a modificationon actual hardware? No. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
